Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-05-1986
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Kar)128; [1986]160ITR50(KAR); [1986]160ITR50(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. As the petitioners in all these cases have challenged certain provision of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), on grounds that are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. The first petitioner in each of Writ Petitions Nos. 7399, 8785 of 1984, 1237, 1238, 1269 and 1623 of 1985, who are the principal petitioners, are either public or private limited companies incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in carrying on one or the other businesses detailed in their respective writ petitions. The second petitioner in each of them are either directors or shareholders of the respective companies, who have joined to avoid technical objections based on the challenge to article 19 of the Constitution. We will, therefore, treat the first petitioner in each of them as the petitioner. The other petitioners in all other cases are partnership firms engaged in carrying on one or the other businesses detailed in their respective petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-17-1986
Reported in : ILR1987KAR457
ORDER1. W.P. 14274/1986 : Petitioner is a registered partnership firm; it is asserted that it is running a Nature Cure Clinic at Yamunabai Road, Madhavnagar, Bangalore. It is said that it is registered under the Companies Act and is assessed for professional tax. Its function, as claimed in the petition, is to solve health problems by nature cure without drug or surgery. It has the facility of steam bath, massaging and yogas. Petitioner's grievance is as follows : '...... The respondents are sending Policemen regularly to the institute of the petitioner and the posting of the Policemen at the institute of the petitioner is preventing the registered patients of the petitioner from taking treatment. By illegal acts and surveillance of the respondents and their officers, the business of the petitioner is affected very much and if the same is continued by the respondents, the petitioner will be forced to close down the business. The acts of the respondents violate the guaranteed fundamenta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-10-1986
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3181
ORDERBopanna, J.1. The petitioner employed as a Security Superintendent by the respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the management) has challenged the older of dismissal passed against him with effect from 5-6-1985 on the ground that the said order of dismissal is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and it also smacks of victimisation and unfair labour practice. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ved Praksh Gupta -v.- Delton Cable India (P) Ltd, : (1984)ILLJ546SC and in the light of the amendment to Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act (for short the Act) raising the upper limit of salaries drawn by supervisors to Rs. 1600/- so as to enable them to qualify themselves for the relief to which they are entitled to under the Act, there could be no doubt that the petitioner was a workman though he was holding the post of Security Superintendent. Thus, the various contentions raised by the petitioner could have been the subject matter of an indus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1986
Reported in : [1986(52)FLR443]; ILR1987KAR353; (1986)IILLJ95Kant
1. The management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has presented this petition praying for quashing the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, rejecting the application of the petitioner made under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) seeking approval for the dismissal from service of the first respondent. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : Respondent No. 1 was a workman in the service of the petitioner. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him with the issue of the charge sheet dated 17th September, 1981. It reads : 'Sub : Charge-sheetRef : Suspension Order No. A/APO-III 200/254/81dated 10.9.1981.During the month of August, 1981, you were posted to work in the second shift 16.15 hours to 0015 hours. On 31st August, 1981 which was a salary disbursement day, you entered the factory at about 9.15 a.m. and drew Rs. 295 as your salary. At about 10.30 a.m. on the same day, you went to Drop Tank Shop and were seen by Vigila...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-08-1986
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3205
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal comes up for preliminary hearing. Ordinarily, while disposing of Writ Appeals either by admitting or by rejecting at the stage of preliminary hearing, this Court does not give any reason. But out of deference to the Counsel who argued the matter at length, we may briefly indicate our reasons.2. C. K. Poonacha, the respondent, was one of the six Security Superintendents in the appellant-NGEF which is a factory employing about 6000 workmen including officers. The factory had a scheme for encouraging Family Planning and as per that scheme an employee or his spouse undergoing sterilisation operation would get Rs. 1,500/- as medical reimbursement and Rs. 200/- as incentive - in all Rs. 1,700/-Liberty was given to the employees or their spouses to undergo tubectomy or vasectomy operation, as the case may be, in any Nursing Home or by any doctor ; but they had to produce the certificate of the doctor stating that they had undergone sterilisation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-11-1986
Reported in : ILR1987KAR1369
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In W.P. 1602 86 the petitioner No. 1 is a Municipal Council and petitioner No. 2 claims to be an Ex-Municipal Councillor. In W.P. 1879/86 the petitioner claims to be a resident of Koppa Town in Chickmagalur Dist. The petitioner in W.P. 2280/86 are citizens of India and they also claim to be rate-payers of Town Municipalities of Krishnarajapet and Bellur in Mandya Dist.2. In W.P. 1602/86 there is an application filed by the petitioners seeking an amendment to the Writ Petition. By the amendment the petitioners want to add a prayer regarding the validity of Section 128 of Karnataka Act No. 20 of 1985 as amended by Karnataka Ordinance No. 19 of 1985 and also for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents not to implement the notifications issued pursuant thereto.3. As in all these petitions the validity of Section 126 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayats Samithis, Mandal Panchayats & Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983(Karnataka Act 20 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-28-1986
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3595
Venkatachaliah, J.1. In this appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, ('Act') Escorts Ltd., the appellant, assails the order dated 23-9-1985 made in E.S.I, Application No. 13 of 1984 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court, Bangalore, ('ESI Court' for short).Appellant initiated the proceedings before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the 'Act' questioning the determination made under Section 45A of the 'Act' demanding E.S.I. contributions from the appellant as 'Principal-employer' in respect of certain workmen employed by appellant's contractors engaged for the construction of appellant's factory-buildings.2. The material facts are these :Appellant has a factory at Yelahanka engaged in the manufacture of 'Pistons'. The said project was taken-up pursuant to a project report prepared in or about the year 1974. The execution of the civil works of the factory buildings and of their sanitary and electrical installations was entrusted to three separate Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-21-1986
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3831; [1987]64STC208(Kar)
ORDERM.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. By these writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners, who are traders and industrial manufacturers, challenge the validity of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 ('principal Act'). The principal Act received the assent of the President on 17th May, 1979. It was published in the Gazette on 1st June, 1979. The legislation is a taxing measure referable to entry 52 of List II and envisages an impost of the nature of an entry tax, intended to raise finances substituting the old octroi till then being levied by the various local authorities and the municipal bodies in the State. There was earlier a large batch of writ petitions challenging the principal Act which ultimately went upto the Supreme Court. The legislative history; the nature and incidents of the impost and the constitutional validity of the charging section were considered by the Supreme Court in State of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-25-1986
Reported in : ILR1986KAR2579
ORDERBopanna, J.1. The Food Corporation of India Loading & Unloading Workers Union (in short the Union) representing the workmen employed by Respondent-2, Labour Contractor of Respondent-1/Food Corporation of India, has filed this petition for a declaration that the action of the Food Corporation of India (in short the Corporation) in retrenching 450 workmen who have been working continuously and rendering services to the Corporation for several years in its various Godowns and Railheads in Bangalore District as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and discriminatory being opposed to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Article 14 of the Constitution and for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Corporation not to retrench the aforesaid workers without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25(N) and (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the I. D. Act) and for other incidental reliefs.2. When this petition came up for preliminary hearing I made an inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-04-1986
Reported in : ILR1987KAR169
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In Writ Petitions 42622 of 1982, 42149 to 42152 of 1982; and 11983/83, Final Gradation List of Assistants in the Karnataka Government Secretariat published as on 1-1-1980, is challenged.2. However, in W.P. 11983/83, the petitioners have sought for amendment of the petition, so as to have the Final Gradation List of the aforesaid Assistants prepared as on 1-1-1986 quashed The amendment sought for by them has been allowed and necessary parties have also been impleaded. Sri G.S Visweswara, learned Counsel for petitioners in W.Ps. 14089 & 14090 of 1986 in which the final gradation list of the aforesaid Assistants published as an 1-1-1986 is challenged, appears for the additional respondents impleaded in W.P. 11983 of 1983, The petitioners in W. Ps, 14089 & 14090 of 1986 and 11983/83 belong to the category of Direct Recruits; whereas the petitioners in other Writ Petitions belong to the category of promotees.3. As the questions involved in W. Ps. 14089 & 14090 of 1986...
Tag this Judgment!